I am looking forward to getting my hands on the M-sized 55-250 or whatever it is--the singular advantage of the M is its overall footprint--so will this new zoom be significantly smaller than its EF-S counterpart?

Canon really does have a conundrum with the M that includes the 70D sensor.

What will people be willing to pay for this souped-up M? I honestly don't know...

As I said in another thread, I think sony's Nex-3N and Nex-6 are good examples for Canon. Cheap : weak fill in flash, tiltable lcd, no EVF, fewer connection for external stuff. Expansive : EVF (maybe tiltable), better LCD, more buttons, more connections (mic and headphone stuff maybe?), better grip.

As a FF proponent, and at the risk of opening the old can of worms, other than at short focal lengths, what REAL advantage does FF have in the real world? Keep in mind, folks, this camera was not designed to be a replacement for a 1-series camera.

The high ISO on Canon's current FF sensors is admittedly pretty amazing. (As for the "Canon's sensors are behind!" crowd, I say the 6D is 1 stop better overall at the highest ISOs then the D600 even though the D600 has better noise in shadows that are pushed hard.)

It's absolutely great to be able to shoot at 25,600...but it's not often that is actually needed. For the vast majority of photographic tasks, APS-C is fine. And slowly improving in Canon's line. (My M's sensor is better then my 7D's sensor, and the 70D is better still from what I've been able to see online. Small improvements, but there.)

I know that they would not show up here but when are we going to see a glimmer of a new line of sensors? Hopefully in the 7DII. Truth be told Canon is making some great cameras. New features, great lenses, excellent stuff, but any Canon camera you buy has a sensor that is outclassed by the other manufacturers. If I'm going to drop big dollars I want something that will not be obsolete as soon as I drive it out of the showroom. I'm in the market for a mirrorless. I have the money, ready to pull the trigger ,give me something good

Yeah, in all honesty if the next round 7D2/5D4 doesn't have better sensors (And if they end up making 5D4 video worse than ML hacked 5D3 RAW video) I will not buy either and I will hold off on more lenses and maybe even nab a nikon with one lens to start going a bit dual system. If the following round doesn't either, as much as I don't want to, I will switch over systems entirely.

I know that they would not show up here but when are we going to see a glimmer of a new line of sensors? Hopefully in the 7DII. Truth be told Canon is making some great cameras. New features, great lenses, excellent stuff, but any Canon camera you buy has a sensor that is outclassed by the other manufacturers. If I'm going to drop big dollars I want something that will not be obsolete as soon as I drive it out of the showroom. I'm in the market for a mirrorless. I have the money, ready to pull the trigger ,give me something good

Yeah, in all honesty if the next round 7D2/5D4 doesn't have better sensors (And if they end up making 5D4 video worse than ML hacked 5D3 RAW video) I will not buy either and I will hold off on more lenses and maybe even nab a nikon with one lens to start going a bit dual system. If the following round doesn't either, as much as I don't want to, I will switch over systems entirely.

You may switch, but it won't be an improvement. You'll just get a different system with different weaknesses; it's not all roses in the Nikon camp. For an awful lot of us, the 5D3 is the best all-round value for the money available today. I wish some things were better on the 5D3, but what camera offers better in that price range? Not the D800: moire and aliasing in video, slower fps, no magic lantern option, not as ergonomic (YMMV).

I'd like a C300 for video at $3000, but not happening today. It's available today, but just too expensive for me. When the C300 is $3000, the lust worthy options will be $15,000.

I know that they would not show up here but when are we going to see a glimmer of a new line of sensors? Hopefully in the 7DII. Truth be told Canon is making some great cameras. New features, great lenses, excellent stuff, but any Canon camera you buy has a sensor that is outclassed by the other manufacturers. If I'm going to drop big dollars I want something that will not be obsolete as soon as I drive it out of the showroom. I'm in the market for a mirrorless. I have the money, ready to pull the trigger ,give me something good

Yeah, in all honesty if the next round 7D2/5D4 doesn't have better sensors (And if they end up making 5D4 video worse than ML hacked 5D3 RAW video) I will not buy either and I will hold off on more lenses and maybe even nab a nikon with one lens to start going a bit dual system. If the following round doesn't either, as much as I don't want to, I will switch over systems entirely.

You may switch, but it won't be an improvement. You'll just get a different system with different weaknesses; it's not all roses in the Nikon camp. For an awful lot of us, the 5D3 is the best all-round value for the money available today. I wish some things were better on the 5D3, but what camera offers better in that price range? Not the D800: moire and aliasing in video, slower fps, no magic lantern option, not as ergonomic (YMMV).

I'd like a C300 for video at $3000, but not happening today. It's available today, but just too expensive for me. When the C300 is $3000, the lust worthy options will be $15,000.

Well if nikon video is still no good, i'd just keep the old 5d3 and a lens or two for video and have to live with that compromise, if by 5D5 they still don't have better DR, forget it. Even if the 5D4 doesn't have it I'll be just about there.

The high ISO on Canon's current FF sensors is admittedly pretty amazing. (As for the "Canon's sensors are behind!" crowd, I say the 6D is 1 stop better overall at the highest ISOs then the D600 even though the D600 has better noise in shadows that are pushed hard.)

I'd rather have cleaner pushed shadows at base ISO's, effectively improving DR over slightly less noise at ISO 12800. To me Canon sensor tech is still way behind Sony. I just love pushing shadows and pulling highlights.

Anyone using the old argument of learning the gear better, or bringing fill lights, that is such a joke. A real photog knows that they'll have to push and pull to get the image looking right.

I'd rather have cleaner pushed shadows at base ISO's, effectively improving DR over slightly less noise at ISO 12800. To me Canon sensor tech is still way behind Sony. I just love pushing shadows and pulling highlights.

Anyone using the old argument of learning the gear better, or bringing fill lights, that is such a joke. A real photog knows that they'll have to push and pull to get the image looking right.

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see one person prove the difference means anything in practice. I push/pull some of my Canon photos pretty hard, including crop sensor RAWs, without difficulty. Is there more noise then there would be on a Sony sensor while pixel peeping? Yes. Does it ruin the image when viewed normally? Can't even see it.

Sure you can underexpose a dark brick wall and shove the ACR slider to +5 and the Sony looks better. (And if you want to bias it, turn NR down or off completely.) Right up until it's compared to a properly exposed shot and you realize that A) you shouldn't rely on ACR to fix gross exposure errors, and B) if you need dramatic DR then you are best off blending exposures. Tonality is typically trashed in the dark brick wall samples people use to "prove" that Sony sensors have better DR.

Sony sensors have better DR, but not by enough to be worth the forum drama. Personally I would rather have the cleaner overall high ISO.

Oh yeah..."real photogs" do everything in their power to capture great light and/or shape their light, because light is everything. If their choice is between pushing shadow detail that has no real tonality or pushing an image that was blended or shot with a graduated ND filter, they will choose the latter if at all possible.

Lots of tiny prime lenses (similar to the current 22mm lens size) and a tiny radio trigger ... pleaseThis is what I have in mind:* EF-M 10mm at least f/4 * EF-M 16mm f/2.8 at least* EF-M 35mm f/2 at least* EF-M 50mm f/1.8 at least* EF-M 85mm f/1.8 at least* EF-M 100mm Macro f/2.8 at least* Last but not the least ... a tiny version of the ST-E3-RT speedlite transmitterThat would make me very happy

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see one person prove the difference means anything in practice. I push/pull some of my Canon photos pretty hard, including crop sensor RAWs, without difficulty. Is there more noise then there would be on a Sony sensor while pixel peeping? Yes. Does it ruin the image when viewed normally? Can't even see it.

Sure you can underexpose a dark brick wall and shove the ACR slider to +5 and the Sony looks better. (And if you want to bias it, turn NR down or off completely.) Right up until it's compared to a properly exposed shot and you realize that A) you shouldn't rely on ACR to fix gross exposure errors, and B) if you need dramatic DR then you are best off blending exposures. Tonality is typically trashed in the dark brick wall samples people use to "prove" that Sony sensors have better DR.

Sony sensors have better DR, but not by enough to be worth the forum drama. Personally I would rather have the cleaner overall high ISO.

Oh yeah..."real photogs" do everything in their power to capture great light and/or shape their light, because light is everything. If their choice is between pushing shadow detail that has no real tonality or pushing an image that was blended or shot with a graduated ND filter, they will choose the latter if at all possible.

Hey, no need to be sorry. We can agree to disagree. From my experience, I get a lot of pattern noise when I push shadows, and they are very visible, especially if the sensor heats up (which it does quickly). This is from a 5D mk II. From the sample images I've worked with, the more recent Nikon images seem much cleaner and more workable. As for the various ways of working with light, bracketing, HDR, strobes, reflectors, scrims, etc. I think ND grads don't really apply because they are quite limited in what you can do, along with the bulk and time it takes to set up, I'd rather just bracket and manually piece the image together in PS.

A beautiful photograph is most important. I just want it to look cleaner. Pattern noise in the shadows of a 5dII image, or even 5DIII image somewhat inhibits my processing. I appreciate your perspective though. Sometimes I can be too OCD.